Ex Parte Brasz et al - Page 3




               Appeal No. 2006-1959                                                                       Page 3                
               Application No. 10/293,711                                                                                       


                                                              OPINION                                                           
                      In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                       
               appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions                  
               articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                     
               following determinations.                                                                                        
                      With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 13 as being unpatentable over Amir in                    
               view of Hanna, the appellants have elected to argue all of the claims together as a single group.                
               Therefore, in accordance with 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 1 as the                         
               representative claim to decide the appeal of this rejection, with claims 9 and 13 standing or                    
               falling therewith.                                                                                               
                      Amir discloses an organic Rankine cycle wherein a pump P is used to circulate liquid                      
               organic fluid, such as Freon, to a boiler 24 where waste heat is absorbed by the refrigerant to                  
               vaporize the refrigerant, with the vaporized organic fluid passing first through a plurality of                  
               nozzles (nozzle box 58 and nozzles 64) and then through a turbine 28, with the resulting cooled                  
               vapor then passing through a condenser 38 for condensing the vapor to a liquid.  The appellants                  
               do not appear to contest the examiner’s determination that Amir discloses all of the limitations of              
               claim 1 with the exception of the refrigerant being R-245fa.                                                     
                      The examiner relies on Hanna as evidence that R-245fa was known in the art at the time                    
               of appellants’ invention as a refrigerant for use in organic Rankine cycles.  In particular, Hanna               
               teaches:                                                                                                         
                              The organic working fluid is preferably either a halocarbon                                       
                              refrigerant or a naturally-occurring hydrocarbon.  Examples of the                                
                              former include R-245fa, while examples of the latter include some                                 
                              of the alkanes, such as isopentane.  Other known working fluids                                   
                              and refrigerants, despite exhibiting attractive thermodynamic                                     
                              properties, are precluded for other reasons.  For example, R-11 is                                
                              one of a class of refrigerants now banned in most of the world for                                
                              environmental reasons [col. 3, ll. 42-50].                                                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013